Argument for God from transcendent value...

48 months ago

>>>Introduction<<<

This article will be based on what 'value' is, our experience of a reality of value (particularly related to human life) and why this entails God exists.

Before I start I will admit "value" is one area in philosophy I have not studied a lot, but I will lay out my reasoning in a series of steps; thus if you disagree with the conclusion due to some step you can point it out (as it will be easy to distinguish).

I we lay out my argument in a deductive form...

>What is a deductive argument?<

A deductive argument is one that if the form of the argument is correct and the premises are true the conclusion logically and necessarily follows. Here is an example argument:

(Example deductive argument)

P1: All men are mortal.

P2: Socrates is a man.

Conclusion: Therefore Socrates is mortal.

Now firstly the form of that argument is correct, that is to say if both those premises are true the conclusion would logically and necessarily follow (like 2+2=4).

Secondly we must ask are the premises correct (or more likely true than not for a probability argument), if not then the conclusion does not follow, but if so then the conclusion necessarily and logically follows.

So if you disagree with the conclusion of the deductive argument which I am posting, you must first show a premise to be false.

>What is 'value'?<

I believe 'value' is something I as a being experience, or other beings experience when we put a worth to something; that thing then has 'value'.

A things 'value' is normally preceded by a beings experiences towards that thing such as need, desire or love etc... then the thing in question has worth and 'value' ('value' although emerging from other experiences, is it's self a separate experience as we recognize it to be distinguishable - this would be based on the logical law of identity). One way to measure the 'value' of something is by what a being is willing to sacrifice for it.

A thing's 'value' will normally also affect what we believe are moral obligations, but the two are not the same and one does not always entail the other (I have a separate article on morality).

>What is a 'properly basic' belief?<

A 'properly basic' belief is a belief that is grounded in it's self and is not inferred from any other belief which is more fundamental to it and also it is a belief rooted in experience; examples of 'properly basic' beliefs are beliefs like my belief I am conscious, my belief of an external world of objects outside myself, my belief I am self aware, my belief I have thoughts, my belief of a moral reality and my belief of a reality of qualitative 'value' which is the point in question.

So there is no epistemic reason to doubt our experience of a reality of qualative values as being true unless we can produce a defeater for it (otherwise we should take it as properly basic to believe it like we do all other properly basic experiences\beliefs). A defeater for example is like when I see a straw bend in water, I have a properly basic experience that the straw bends but I can infer from other properly basic beliefs that this is not the case and thus I have a defeater for the initial properly basic belief.

>>>The Deductive Argument<<<

P1: (We experience) Human life has 'value' which is not just based on the worth other human beings might happen to give it; but rather a worth which goes right down to the core of reality.

P2: Human life can not have any value outside what other imminent and sentient beings give it unless God exists (the Personal metaphysical ground of all reality).

Conclusion: Therefore God exists.

>>>Review Of The Premises<<<

>Premise 1<

I as a human experience a reality of qualitative values, I am sure you do also. Now when it comes to human beings I am sure you experience their 'value' based on what we as a collective race give to each other, how we value each other; also we experience the 'value' our mothers, fathers, brothers, sisters, sons and daughters have based on the worth we personally give to them.

So in that way we all have objective 'value'.

But I also experience a reality of qualitative value for human life which transcends what other beings of like nature might happen to give it, a value that transcends down to the core of reality in fact; I am sure you experience this reality too.

See I have an experience of the reality of human 'value' which tells me even if no human or other being of like nature placed any worth on an individual human (and even if I myself did not) yet still that human has 'value'.

Do you believe (like me) that even if it just so happened that one of your family members unfortunately had no one who placed any worth (value) in them, it still would not follow that they are then objectively as valuable or value-less as dirt (which has next to no value placed on it), but that they still have an objective value regardless of this unfortunate scenario?

Well if you agree with this last thought then this 'value' your family member has must come from a transcendent source above what other sentient beings happen give that family member.

So I believe you should accept premise (1) as being true (or more likely true that not) based on: if you believe like me in what I stated above then you must believe this premise is true, and also because this experience of a reality of 'value' for human life at a fundamental level would actually be a 'properly basic' belief, thus rationally you would be obliged to believe it anyway, unless a defeater is presented.

>Premise 2<

I established what I believed 'value' is above, that it emerges on a thing after being preceded by a being's need, desire or love for that thing.

Well if we hold it true that human life has a objective 'value' and worth even if all other beings of like nature give it no worth, but that this very 'value' comes from deep down to the metaphysics of reality, then this can only be true if God exists.

This is because God is the very metaphysics of reality and value as I defined above can only come from a Personal Being (it could not come from something that is impersonal, as an impersonal thing does not have the preceding causes in which 'value' emerges - dirt for example can not give anything 'value').

>Conclusion<

So the conclusion is God exists...

Remember I showed how if both premises are correct the conclusion logically and necessarily follows (as sure as 2+2=4), and that conclusion is God exists.

Also do you remember that I said one way a things 'value' could be measured by is what a being is willing to sacrifice for that thing.